Can 802.11 Become A Viable Last-Mile Alternative? 206
NikiScevak writes "As telco's around the world move from government hands to private investors the incentive for them to create compeition at the wholesale DSL level drops dramatically. The CSIRO in Australia are investigating the use of Wireless LAN technology 802.11b as a means through which to provide alternative broadband access, achieving range of up to 7km with standard components."
Japan has SpeedNet (Score:2, Insightful)
A google search would probably turn up some interesting information.
Re:Privatization = Decreased Competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
It all depends on the market. As for local loop: there is only one local loop, it is fully uneconomical to make a second one. Alternatives (such as wireless) are inferior, especially on a large scale. Maybe a second local loop is possible (being cable) in some areas, but still, two companies with no chance for more doesn't really give competition. There shall be (silent, because it's forbidden) agreement between two companies to share and divide the market.
Nothing is worse than the combination of monopoly and privatization.
Privatization with true competition is best.
If this is not possible (true for many infrastructure markets such as railways, local loop, utilities such as water etc) then the next best alternative is to create a publicly owned non-profit organization that just manages the infrastructure.
Private companies should compete to offer sericces over that publicly owned infrastructure.
Old example is (publicly owned) roads where many transport companies compete to offer moving goods using trucks, using the public roads.
New example can be publicly owned local loop that is offered to customers at cost price. Then the customer can select a provider that delivers him full internet service via this (cheap) local loop.
Consumer cost many be similar (Score:5, Insightful)
The costs to the service provider may also be significantly less than using the full Telstra ADSL or ISDN service. In some areas they may only need to put an antenna on the roof of their office and pay Telstra for the connection to the backbone (instead of having to also rent wires to their customers).
I'm amazed by the number of people in Australia who ditch their ISP due to poor quality connections, and then have the same problem with the next ISP - and don't realise that everything is coming down the same wire controlled by the same telecommunications company.
To all those who are confused as to who Telstra is, it is the formerly government owned, half privatised telecommunications company that owns most of the communications in Australia. The remainder is owned by Optus/Singtel, a mainly Singapore government owned telecommunications company, which has a few lines, provides cable TV and broadband to a few small areas and has a mobile phone network. These half privatised companies have most of the worst aspects of both goverment (a we rule you attitude) and private enterprise (more charges for less service all of the time). The way they are heading, full privatisation will turn them into monsters that make the worst multinational mining corporations look like a charities. Therefore, anything that increases the choice here is good.
All the other telecommunications companies mainly just rent space on those two networks.
Too much (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it all together and none of it will work, except the microwave.
Irrational (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus, it is only logical to separate the local loop from the service providers. Create a non-profit (public owned) company that maintains the local loop and offers it at cost price. The telecom companies can compete to offer service over this public infrastructure.
Just like the road system (which is mostly public in most countries). Everyone can use them for a relatively small amount of money. Imagine the situation where there would be no public roads, but the 'local transport company' alone would build and own roads and offer their transport services (trucks, taxis) in one package; since you can hardly have 3 different roads leading to your house, you would be dependant on 1 or maybe 2 transport companies if you want to use the road leading to your house.
Would privatization solve such an absurd situation? No, since no true competition can't exist even if the transport companies would be privately owned (i.e. strive for maximum profit).
The only solution is to have a public infrastructure, and have private companies compete using this public infrastructure.
The polititians that essentially gave away the local loop to a privatized telecom operator (i.e. they gave away something that the public has paid for) made a huge mistake. This must be corrected.
Re:802.11 will never be a last mile alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you've never been to Europe lately? Here, we have a decent GSM-network that almost never fails (yeah, on New Year and on Valentine it always fails). I know lot's of people (both young, old, poor, rich, student or CEO) that have gone to GSM exclusivly. The only reason I still have a PSTN line is for the fax and (more important) the ADSL access on it!
Re:Privatization = Decreased Competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I'd disagree with you on the point that "two isn't enough for competition." Two is quite enough, as evidenced by the technological advances cable companies have made now that they are threatened by DirecTV. Currently I have hundreds of high-quality digital channels streaming into my household over the cable infrastructure. I'm sure we'd still be watching 40 channels of analog television if it wasn't for the competition.
Read the article (and a few books on Security) (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, this nonsense about being afraid of wireless access to the Internet due to security is *silly*. You're connecting to the Internet. What sort of security do you expect on a normal *wire*? Want real security? Use IPsec, TLS, or ssh.
Remember, here in America we have our own troubles with last mile access, the cost of getting into COs and all that fun. This is a good alternative in other countries where access is even more impeded.
Re:Read the article (and a few books on Security) (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but right now internet access is useally not secure, but it is controlled. Your connection to your ISP is fairly save as people useally don't dig in your neighbourhood to tap in to your line.
With wireless you don't have to tap into the lines but just use your own 802.11 card and you can tap into all the traffic around you.
What is at stake is stuff like email passwords etc. This can be solved by using secure logon but most ISP don't offer this.
Ahh the CSIRO (Score:3, Insightful)
The specific research in question here is to determine the feasibility of the idea and to answer (with facts rather than BS we have seen here) the question of whether the wireless technology is viable. And despite the erudite position of some of the "interesting" slashdotter's, I'll take CSIRO's results before their opinions any day
Re:Ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but that is a crock of total bullshit. I agree with your second sentence (end-to-end, certainly), but what sort of a comparison is wired LAN to 802.11.
The office I work in currently has a slightly less secured LAN than it used to, because we're running 32 sets of CAT5 between level 2 and level 5 of a building we don't own. Anyone who can access them, and work single _one_ of them is actually carrying network traffic (as opposed to phone or just sitting black) could probably stick a 100Mb switch in between and I wouldn't notice (it would have to talk 100 Full Duplex or I would notice the lights).
To do this, they would need to gain access to the building (either during business hours, with a stolen swipe card (or a legit one if the work in the building)) - then access the roofs of either level 2 or 5, or maybe the comms riser - without being asked any questions, or by evading questions.
Once they had access, they would have to either install a scanning device there, and come back every so often to collect data, create a link out (possibly using 802.11 even) - or sneakiest of all, send packets back out through our network and hope I didn't notice the traffic (quite possible really, I don't monitor everything the workstations send that closely, and spoofing a hardware address on packets would probably work quite nicely. Win98 won't be logging unexpected reply packets, and if they spoof something from upstairs, the switch downstairs will send the replies up that wire).
Oh, or they could crack a box I already have and install a scanner on that. Would involve doing the crack of course.
.... what was my point - oh yeah, with 802.11, they sit in a car in the 6 story car park about 30 metres straight out the window and listen to every packet - no chance of getting caught (well, shit all chance anyway), no complex equipment required (say $1000 for a second hand laptop and $500 for the card - the car costs more than that too I guess, if you want to count that.. or their clothes for that matter).
Electronic attacks against a LAN are a lot more complex and expensive, so please stop spreading such FUD. 802.11 breaks the physical barriers in a way that any but the most stupidly laid LANS (wires on the outside of the building anyone) don't.